h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

In a conversation recently someone mentioned that the prevailing social attitude is affected by that of times previously. Specifically it was suggested that the outer prudishness and moral strictness of the Victorian age was a response to the licentiousness of preceeding ages. Now my history on these general themes is not that great so I was wondering on the opinions of others here. This concept that there is a cycle of a licentious society leading eventually to a more strictly moralistic society through various intermediate stages and then back again as people reacted to that, was then used to propose that we are currently moving towards the peak of a licentious society now and that over the next x amount of time we will move back to something approaching the prudishness of the Victorian age.
Perhaps moving faster between the extremes as we go.

Certainly true, the 'licentuous' attitudes of the 70s are certainly looked down upon now. The rise of AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases is pushing people to be more careful with their free love. We are seeing countless 'born again virgin' groups spring up, and the furor over Janet Jackson's showed how moralistic American society is becoming.

I'm just off out to get myself a nice pair of knickerbockers...

Makes you wonder how much of an effect the prevailing societal viewpoint has upon the general populace though. The victorian era saw the rise of pornography, a large amount of prostitution and, if you believe "From Hell" by Alan Moore, the Prince Regent sleeping with all and sundry. Likewise, are we any less promiscuous these days than the seventies? HSV-2 (genital herpes infection) is at an all time high in young women. Of course it could be that more people are seeking treatment...

This sounds like the 'Hegelian dialectic' theory of history: that a state of how things are ('thesis') is followed by its opposite ('antithesis') as a reaction, and that the features of the two then combine in a 'synthesis' which is itself a new 'thesis' for the process.

For Hegel this was an aspect of his ideas about the Absolute becoming self-aware, which was supposed to happen when he came up with his philosophy. However, it can be viewed as a straightforward theory of history. I don't think it's widely subscribed to now, though.

heh heh, spot the person with a philosophy degree

Oooh, thanks peeps! Especially for the Hegellian Dialectic wotsit thingumy! I can sound dead clever now

Perhaps it just works on the outside, i mean it is obvious (to me anyhow) that we do react to past societies (witness current liberal leanings on the issues of equality). Perhaps it just appears to be a swich between poles but is actually a 3 steps forward 2 steps back type of progression?

I dont think its as linear as that and the true behaviour of the majority is hidden by the way history and societal norms were recorded.

Jude the Obscure was the first novel to feature a working class central character. Lady Chatterleys Lover was such a contentious book not merely because of the sex but because it dealt with a Lady "stooping" to get jiggy with a bit of working class rough.

I dont think that individually we are any more libidinous than we ever have been, but circumstances change. We have fewer children and are therefore afforded the extra time to be sexual. Mobility plays a part to and the increasing numbers of women in the work place mean that men and woemne mix with each other more, both of these things provide us with greater opportunities than we previously had for a sneaky liason.

I think you may be right though that the surface veneer, the fashionable attitudes that people adopt or more likely attempt to portray in them selves are things that wax and wane. There is only so far you can go before making a statemnet means having to come back the other way. Some people will do this because they have to stand out and be contrary while others will follow to look cutting edge and interesting and next it will be the sheep that tag along just to stay with the herd.

However culture and counter cultures are running in different vectors and different paces and mass media with easy access means that largeish social sub-groups can stay connected while each and every other social sub-group gets on with its own thing. Communication improvemnets allows for greater divergent activities and diversity in attitude without out and out isolation.

Modern culture is dizzying and things are only getting more and more bewildering to take in all at once. To the point where when a commentator speaks they will sound like a historian to some groups.

one love

Unfortunately the surface veneer has a greater impact on the legislation of society than perhaps it should. So if it is fashionable to be strait laced and prim and proper then social mores and legislation will more likely follow it, even though everyone is still at it like randy teenagers behind the bike shed.

'spot the person with a philosophy degree'

Actually, my Personal Space clearly states that I'm an undergrad. The assumption that I have a degree I shall take as an unintended compliment.

Should have guessed, only those studying for a degree are able to exhibit such precise knowledge of the subject. Once you have the degree you instantly forget everything you learned and the earlier post would probably have been along the lines of 'This sounds like thingies dichotowotsit'.

I'm inclined to agree that the Hegelian dialectic is a questionable and imprecise model; as I said, I don't think it's widely favoured now -- people who do subscribe to a 'dialectical' view of history seem (although to be fair I haven't conducted a survey) to tend to be Marxists, subscribing to Marx's Hegel-inspired 'Dialectic Materialism', which seeks to explain historical events as arising from economic circumstances -- and it was tied up with Hegel's other views. I brought it up because the suggestion Ictoan referred to sounded similar.

There's a word, which I can't remember, that basically means 'everything that goes around comes around'. That's what it is.

More on the philosophy front - wasn't it the famous bloke that came along after Aristotle who wrote at length about the sudden mixing of cultures - something happening again today with the advent of the internet. (Not on topic as such, but pertinent as an example of Icky's theorising.)

Queegle
(Has certainly forgotten most of that taught.)

Karma, I call it. My husband has a philosophy degree and he doesn't talk like that.

Karma is a term from 'Eastern' philosphy; it appears in both Hinduism and Buddhism (both of which originated in India), although each has its own version. Philosophy courses in the U.K. tend, as far as modern philosophy is concerned, to be heavily analytic (very much to do with language and logic; primarily 'Anglo-Saxon') with some Continental (i.e. from Western Europe, and tending to be less dry and more 'literary' and 'human') philosophy alongside the analytic part of the course; a few also cover philosophies from further East.

Aristotle was the last of the major Greek philosophers, so I'm not sure what 'famous' person could be meant, I'm afraid. Do you know whether the person was Greek? Roman? Later?

happyhappygirl...it was a joke.....

For the record:

'Victorian' morality (1850-1918) was not unique to Britain and was a reaction to the debauchery and libertarianism of the Romantic movement (1780-1850) which was also widespread throughout western civilisation.

The Romantic movement was the wild child of the Evangelical Movement (c1775) itself a reaction to the coldness of the Age of Reason, which was a decided attempt to ameliorate the insanities of the Reformation and Puritan era which were a reaction to Elizabethan liberties...

"And the painted ponies goes round and round..." - Judy Collins


~jwf~

Yeah but the history that your talking about is largely concerned with the actions of the ruling classes and those who lived in cities, who even during the early modern era made up a a minority of the people in the Western World.

What of the social sttitude of those not in the west or who were in the west but whose lives and thoughts were not consdered important enough to record.

I dont think that anyone can be on sound ground claiming ever to pinpoint a prevailing social attitude at any time in histiory. The majority attitude at present in the UK is that we dont think we should be involved militarliy in Iraq. Yet there are enough people nationally and in certain positions to ensure that the contrary and minority social attitude prevails.

Then there is the issue of veneer. Ask a bunch of people of mixed age and gender "who here buys porn?", and you would be left wondering how Richard Desmond and Rupert Murdoch got so rich. Yet divide them by age and gender and you would end up with very different answers.

one love

Re: economics...I think once we settled down and started growing crops, it's all been about economics (and control or resources, and stratification, etc. etc.). I look at the 'veneer' thing the other way around - the 'needs' of those in power drives change, and the preferences at the personal level are those surface traits that reveal the variety of ways in which humans behave but don't ultimately have much effect on the times.

I think everything ebbs and flows from one extreme to another.
People get comfy about having solved a difficult problem and forget it. The solution becomes a problem when it hits an extreme or is abused in some way.

The public concerns and attitudes over mental health in the US comes to mind. It may not be the shortest or most precise example but I'll try.

In the 1950's-
The rich could afford to lock up the relatives they did not want at family and social gatherings in private hospitals. They did not want them to reproduce so they paid to have them quietly sterilized.

The poor locked them in the basement at home in some cases, there was no money for hospitals. Then society locked them up in jails once out of the basement.

Suddenly too many people are locked up against their will and forgotten by relatives and surgically sterilized by the government.(1950's)
*************************
Everybody is let out of the horrid institutions and forced sterilization becomes illegal. The homeless population grows and so does the crime against them.(7o's)
****************************
The economy is doing well so everybody with insurance gets mental health benefits and the problems appear bigger than they are. Adolescent homes open in every county to take in children that are too difficult for the parents. (80's)

The business takes advantage of the free flowing money and anyone with money is sucked dry and then released when the money is gone but not the original problem (if there was one).(80's)
********************************
The places close.
So then we built more jails and go back to letting the more severe mental health of the poor fall back into the hands of the criminal system.(90's)The richest of folks are the only ones with insurance for mental health coverage again.

Now the public is inadequately *taking care of them* at three times the cost(in prison) while other programs for the public are going broke. These institutions are now private money makers in the building and operation areas. The public pays for the services with more people locked up than ever with the highest debt ever and less services once again for the general public.(2000)

Swinging from one extreme to another seems to be the way.
The treatment of abandon children and many other important social issues have done the same.

You would think we would have learned enough to have a healthier balance by now. I hope we do 3 steps forward but only two backward at a time, as someone on this thread stated previously.

Interesting. The ruling classes define our society as it matters to future generations. They make the laws, we have to live with them. And The War Against Terrorism (as it was known before someone pointed out the acronym) is a prime example.
Simply put when it comes to global and national politics, there may be 1.5 million people on the streets of Britain campaiging against it, but their views do not matter. They are not significant in the decision. Same goes for other social trends. 1 in 3 marriages fails. Yet when a high profile person divorces it is big news. Why? Happens all the time. But the prevailing social atmosphere is still that marriage should be for life. That is changing though. How about sexual partners on the side? Seems everyone is at it ('cept me who can't even get 1 let alone 2 or more !!) You go down any pub in the uk and there will be people bragging or confiding about this. Yet everyone has a go at any celeb who breaks the rule and has someone 'on the side'. The hypocracy is sickening unless you understand that what is happening is that we have an idealised view of our society, and that idealised view is the prevailing attitude. Anyone who breaks this rule is close to shattering our illusion, so we feel threatened by them. Many who go against this view think they are being clever, or getting away with it. When in actual fact it seems everyone is up to it. Or for it But the idealised view is the world we think we want to live in. So that is the world we legislate for and the world we use as a reference when we judge others.

History and social views are owned by those in power. Rome was not exclusivly about Caeser, the Legions and Gladiators, they were a minority. But they had the power so they dictated how their society worked. Yet they are all the vast majority know about.

Oh, and this thread is exclusivly about the western world, and the UK in particular because that is what I know and what affects me most directly.